Resume question

[Anonymous]

I'm starting to look for a new job and I've been reading articles about resume writing. They often recommend showing "results" in your resume (e.g., Increased sales by 20%; successfully launched new product, etc.). I'm in the law/policy field. Do people do this sort of results-oriented description in law/policy? On the career sites I read, they used examples from business, and I've not seen this in law. But I've been in my job for 8 years, and I know I am not current on job search tactics. What says DCUM?

[Anonymous]

Well, in a way, I think you answered your own question, sort of. I work in business, and, results are pretty clear and easily documented.
What is the benchmark for a good lawyer? Winning cases, having a defendant's charges dismissed? As for policy, geez, kinda tough. Somehow you need to state what you accomplished - look back on your career. What do you consider wins, or, successes?? Document them. Think of all the power verbs: accomplished, increased that, streamlined, etc.

[Anonymous]

I am also a lawyer doing policy work. It's very tough to show specific results like in business. But if you did something you are proud of or is major then include it. For example- represented org in coalitions, including by convening a group to do xyz. Or served as lobbyist and helped pass a major bill before House.

[Anonymous]

Most firm webpages are starting to be more "results oriented" on their attorney bios, so check your colleagues or peer firms in your practice area and see what they are saying. If you're in litigation, probably stuff about "successfully arguing" in front of x, y z court or listing other specific successful outcomes at various levels in trial. If in corporate, "represented fortune 500 company on acquisition of X, Y Z". If regulatory, "successfully petitioned for X, y z on behalf of Fortune 500 company". At 8 years out in law school, you probably don't have too much direct "results" to talk about, because you're usually still assisting on pieces of bigger projects. But if you check firm bios, they have ways to craft this language - like "participated in successful litigation" or whatever that sort of skirts the issue that you weren't directly responsible for the outcome. I think at 8 years out of law school, potential employers are more interested in the scope of experience you have and less interested in results. So use the various examples above both to convey your "results" (to the extent you can) but also to describe a variety of different experiences/expertises. So if you're in litigation, make sure that one bullet conveys your trial experience (successfully litigated X), one conveys regulatory agency experience (assisted fortune 500 company in FOIA whatever request related to discovery with government agency), one conveys research skills (led research team on x, y and z), one conveys arbitration (successful outcome for fortune 500 client at international arbitration of medical device lawsuit), etc. I am not in litigation so I'm making up all those items - no idea if they are real things in litigation. But you get the idea. Obviously craft to meet the requirements of the job you're applying to.

[Anonymous]

OP I get what you mean. A few years ago I did a career change and was applying to law firms using a resume that was very heavily result oriented because my background was in STEMs with an MBA and work experience in product development and contracts. The law firms I applied to needed technical experts and I thought that showing results in terms of % revenue growth, process improvements in terms of $ saved as well as things like number of papers published etc. was a great way to show that I get things done and add value. The feedback I got was that the partners couldn't relate to the resume. I was explicitly told that they were concerned about University name and GPA and what other law firm I had worked at prior. They didn't understand anything beyond their limited and narrow law-school experience. They were hiring for a licensed PhD to help them with patent litigation and they hadn't even done research on what the top two or three engineering schools are let alone what it means to be licensed. I came away from the experience with a clear picture that law firms are stuck in this law school mentality that changes into some sort of finder, minder, grinder mindset. The PP that said to check out some firm webpages a mimic what you see is good advice. If its different... they don't understand it...

[Anonymous]

The reason for the "showing results" guidance isn't really to prove you were successful, per se. It is because people latch onto concreteness in resumes.

The point of the "increased sales by 20%" example is that it sounds more concrete and particular, and hence more likely to be true, than "increased sales in my organization." The reader doesn't need to know the amount was 20%, but the reader wants to know this was a tangible outcome.

With that background in mind, it shouldn't be that hard to apply to the legal field. E.g. replace "drafted many briefs" with "drafted over four dozen appellate briefs" and "has experience deposing people" with "deposed two dozen named representatives in complex consumer class action."

[Anonymous]

This is OP. To clarify, I've been out of school longer than 8 years, just at my last job for that long so my job seeking skills are rusty. Also, I'm not in litigation, so there's no X cases won, X depositions defended. It's more regulatory/policy in nature, so more like analyzing regulations, drafting comment letters, etc. But these suggestions are helpful. More please!